The film industry was blasted last week by veteran actresses Juliet Stevenson and Bridget Jones’ diary star Gemma Jones who said male executives only cast ‘nubile and beautiful young women’.

Actors of their age are only offered ‘mother roles’, they claimed and it is having a devastating impact on mature female talent.

Now, forgive me if I've got something out of kilter here, but aren't actresses of a motherly age more suited to film roles which portray them as, well, mothers?

Naturally, Hairy is incensed.

I cannot think of another industry that embraces such an ageist attitude or indeed where it is accepted practice to discriminate against older women so overtly.

She's got a bloody point, you know.

I mean, why wasn't Stevenson cast in the Hannah Montana movie, eh? Or Gemma Jones given the role of Hermione in the last Harry Potter offering? Blatant ageism!

The picture is bleak for so many women because the executives are male and looking for young actresses.

Err, probably because the script, or the paying audience, kinda dictates that the story requires one. Doncha think, Hairy?

Being Labour, of course Hairy wants more laws.

Britain is legislated up to the hilt against employers who would consider using ageist policies within their work environment, you are (quite rightly in my view), not even allowed to ask a persons age within an application for a new job. Yet it has become accepted practice in the acting world in a way it wouldn’t be anywhere else.

I can see it now, Judi Dench rocking up and demanding to be given equal chance of playing a teen crack addict in Noel Clarke's next urban drama. And screaming age-related prejudice when she fails the audition.

12 comments:

"...you are (quite rightly in my view), not even allowed to ask a persons age within an application for a new job." Yes, Ms Moneyballs but you obviously think it's Ok that people can be grilled about whether they smoke or not on job application forms and I bet you'd have nothing to say about those employers that can legally refuse to employ a smoker simply because they choose to smoke in their own time out of work. These Labourite, pathetic champagne socialists make me sick - including millionaire Ms Merron who I hear today will get a £100,000 hand shake for being such a twat!

I think it's called the law of supply and demand. Are they sure they're not turning away work because they don't want more matronly roles? Age may be more unkind to women, but they sure have the advantage when they're young!

I do think that the cosmetics companies have it wrong though. Lancome got rid of the lovely Isabella Rosellini just as she reached an age when her promotion of anti-aging products was most effective. Substituting nubile 20-somethings because they've already got perfect skin was missing the point in spades, IMO!

£350,000??? You sure you've got that right? Only the rumour is that the last thing Gordon did, just before the bailiffs threw him out on his arse, was to sign an order CUTTING the PM's remuneration package from £194,000 down to £150,000.

But surely he must have cut the leader of the opposition's pay at the same time?

Ageism isn't like racism. Everyone is subject to it. If you don't make as much when you're old then you made a lot more when you were young.

There are more parts for young women. Reason? Because the only people who want to see middle-aged women in rom coms are middle-aged women, and they don't go to the cinema much or buy many DVDs.

Maybe Ms Stevenson can stop fucking whining about her lot and go and write her own damn script and get it made, if she thinks there's such an audience for it. A lot of feminism drives me around the bend like this - these women want equality, but when the chips are down, they just fucking bleat rather than making their own luck.

Not everything she says is wrong ... then the next sentence you point out something she said which is wrong. Interesting. ;-)

Back on topic though - sorry, Tyson, I disagree (I would do, it's my article ;-) ). It IS a lefty thing and it IS to do with feminism - Hairy wouldn't have touched it otherwise. That's what she does.

As someone mentioned above, the whole 'problem' is down to market forces. The idea/implication that male film execs are demanding scripts which feature young women, or casting only young women, for any other reason than to better profit their movie company, is quite absurd.

The film business is all about maximising box office receipts, it always has been. If casting older women was a big draw, you'd have loads of young actresses whining. It's just tough.

The 15-24 age group go to the cinema three times more than over 35s according to government figures. Those in that age bracket tend to think anyone over 40 is a crusty and, I guess, wouldn't be too attracted to films with a 40 something as a love interest, say. It's market economics.

And guess what? It's only lefties who demand that the market (ie what people want) should be changed, by legislation, to suit their own preferences or agenda.

As for the ageism the same for all idea. It has some merit. Stevenson, for example, gained her first movie roles in the 70s when she was early 20s so would have no doubt had a chance to benefit back then. Now she's older, she can hardly complain, unless she's saying it never used to happen, which would be rather strange considering sexism was far more rife in those days.

Lastly, what is so wrong with being given 'motherly' roles? Stevenson is a fine actress who has played some great parts. All of which suit her to a tee, what on earth makes her think she'd be good as, say, the female lead in a remake of Notting Hill?

Frankly, I fail to grasp even the need for debate .. for Christ's sake .. they're actresses, people who spend their entire lives running around dressed as & pretending to be other people (for which they actually get paid) ..

Now if it were Cardiac or Brain Surgeons, in other words, people who can literally make the difference between life & death .. there might be cause for alarm ..